Why do progressives hate evolution?

You know, one of the hardest things to find on this planet is a progressive who believes in Creationism. You'll find lots of conservatives who believe in it, plenty of conservatives who believe in Darwinism and a fair few conservatives who, like me, believe in both, but virtually all progressives claim to believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Except they don't when it comes to the real world.

Change, change, change is the drumbeat that all progressives like to dance to. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pushed their nominations for the Democrat presidential candidacy on a platform of “change” - as did Bill Clinton. OK, OK - Bill's preference was for a change of sexual partner as often as possible, but you get the idea.

When it comes to society, conservatives believe in change too – but in a Darwinian, evolutionary way. Progressives, however, reject Darwinism outright and prefer the Creationist approach to society – i.e. that someone has to make change happen and that it has to be immediate.

A conservative will believe that real sustainable progress is made by tiny, natural changes that occur over long periods of time without disruption, while a progressive believes that change must be sudden and dramatic.

In a progressive version of evolution, an insect would wake up one day and decide that to survive it would be a good idea if it looked more like a stick. So it would rub itself against a stone to pare off a few parts of it's exoskeleton until it looked like a stick shape, dip it's sore and bleeding body in mud and go and cling to a stick.

Hey, whaddya know – it died.

Of course it is a stupid idea – but that is the attitude of  progressives to “change”.

Look at British schools. They had developed slowly over a long period of time and few would argue that they weren't getting better for everybody. You may not have liked the grammar/secondary modern system, but few would disagree that it wasn't a lot better than what existed 100 years before - or even 50 years before.

Of course there were faults, but these would have improved over time if left to evolve naturally. The argument that secondary modern schools just churned out factory workers and secretaries had some creedence (though it also churned out, carpenters, plumbers, nurses and midwives – and boy, we could do with a few of those now) – but that is what society required at the time.

As Britain moved towards a more high technology/services orientated society then there is little doubt that secondary moderns as well as grammars would have evolved to meet this demand.

But progressives couldn't accept that. Schools had to “change” and change they must. So they forced the change on schools and brought in “comprehensive” education in a sudden and dramatic way. The result? Schools that no longer churn out adults that fulfil the demand of society. Worse still, schools that fail to churn out adults who have acceptable levels of basic education. Even those young adults who are leaving school with good grades and entering university are so poorly educated that universities spend the first year on remedial education.

When it comes to society, progressives hate evolution. They like creationism. They want to be the creators and so enforce sudden and dramatic change on systems without regard for the consequence. You can not - you should not - try and force society to change with a sudden and dramatic alteration to an evolutionary process.

Thanks to progressives attitude to change, our society has been pared down to the bones, dipped in mud and is clinging to a stick. Do you think it's going to survive like that?